Firearms rally scheduled for Chambers...

Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square

There are 10983 comments on the Chambersburg Public Opinion story from Mar 29, 2013, titled Firearms rally scheduled for Chambersburg's square. In it, Chambersburg Public Opinion reports that:

Two local organizations are hosting a Second Amendment Freedom Rally on from noone to 2 p.m. April 6 on Courthouse Plaza in downtown Chambersburg.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Chambersburg Public Opinion.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#11570 Feb 23, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
It's been real wintry here too. The good news is that we get to start the growing season with 108% of snow pack in our drainage area. Getting the greenhouse ready for it now. Fixin' to get the fishing boat ready real soon as well.
Good snow pack means a really green spring. Should be beautiful, I'd love to be there. It won't be long before I can cut loose and head back to the high lonesome again.

“HUNTING RIGHTS ADVOCATE”

Since: Oct 08

Boggy Creek

#11571 Feb 23, 2014
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
How are you doing? Long time no see.
I've been around. Been posting on several other threads. Doin' pretty good just getting tired of winter weather.....ready for a season change.

Hope you and yours are doing well too.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#11575 Feb 23, 2014
2ndAmRight wrote:
<quoted text>
Do any ice fishing?
Only when I am sooooo bored that sitting on a bucket freezing my assoff for hours, sounds exciting.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#11576 Feb 23, 2014
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>Good snow pack means a really green spring. Should be beautiful, I'd love to be there. It won't be long before I can cut loose and head back to the high lonesome again.
Good deal. Be safe.

“shall NOT be infringed”

Since: Oct 13

Phoenix

#11577 Feb 23, 2014
Squach wrote:
<quoted text>I've been around. Been posting on several other threads. Doin' pretty good just getting tired of winter weather.....ready for a season change.
Hope you and yours are doing well too.
Good to hear. And glad to see you again. Same to you and yours.

“Evolved hunter/gatherer”

Since: Jan 08

Location hidden

#11580 Feb 24, 2014
Julia wrote:
<quoted text>Do you think Danny will show up to answer your question? I think he knows he has been proven to be clueless and is keeping a low profile in the hopes your question will be forgotten.
That's how he operates.....
Will he show up? Yes.
Will he address the question? No.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#11581 Feb 24, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
"Summaries" of studies based solely on statistical numbers have been off base so many times it is almost a proverb. Let's see that study and those numbers so that they can be dissected and studied by peers and opponents alike.
If I show you a photo of two race cars on a circle track and one is red and one is blue, with the photo showing the red car in front of the blue car, is that proof positive that the red car is ahead of the blue car in the actual race?
A. Yes
B. No
Which is correct Dan?
If I see a picture of two cars on a race track and want to know who is winning, I could ask someone who watched the race or a race official or someone who reports on races. IOW - to find out the facts I consult with someone with some expertise.

And there is no reason in the world not to trust the expertise of these researchers...unless you have a pre-existing bias that your car is the winner no matter what any objective observer tells you.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#11582 Feb 24, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
I am well aware that many have misread and misapplied, and then misled others intentionally with their "scientific studies" numbers.
This is absolutely true of the pro-gun "research" crowd. Objective sources however have reported their findings accurately.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#11583 Feb 24, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Rare or common, how about actually addressing the question Danny?
Sorry I'm not at your beck and call. In the future I'll try harder to respond within the time frame you require of me.

LMAO!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#11584 Feb 24, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>

Will he address the question? No.
And you make that prediction based on what? I always address reasonable questions, and you know it. Just because you don't like my responses doesn't mean I haven't addressed your questions.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#11587 Feb 24, 2014
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
And just what would you consider "objective sources", Dan?(and just because YOU claim they are objective, doesn't make it so, does it?)
Actual scientific researchers connected to legitimate academic institutions and who have a history of credibility and who have produced peer-reviewed, empirically-based work that is rooted in sound scientific and statistical practices.

Who do YOU consider to be objective sources (and just because you claim they are objective, doesn't make it so, does it?) LOL!

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#11588 Feb 24, 2014
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
And just what would you consider "objective sources", Dan?(and just because YOU claim they are objective, doesn't make it so, does it?)
Do you consider Johns Hopkins to NOT be objective? And if so, on what basis do you make that assessment?

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#11589 Feb 24, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you consider Johns Hopkins to NOT be objective? And if so, on what basis do you make that assessment?
Johns Hopkins is neither. It is just the name of a university. And whether or not the research is objective depends purely on the person or persons doing to research. Just because they are attached to a prestigious university does NOT mean that they are objective in their research and do not have an agenda.

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#11590 Feb 24, 2014
And "peer-reviewed" would depend on who those peers are and what, if any, agenda THEY may have. Doesn't it?

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#11591 Feb 24, 2014
Armed Veteran wrote:
<quoted text>
Johns Hopkins is neither. It is just the name of a university. And whether or not the research is objective depends purely on the person or persons doing to research. Just because they are attached to a prestigious university does NOT mean that they are objective in their research and do not have an agenda.
Really? You think Hopkins hires hacks? That they allow their name and reputation to be associated with sub-standard or shoddy work?

Come on now. Be serious.

Since: May 12

Chambersburg, PA

#11592 Feb 24, 2014
Armed Veteran wrote:
And "peer-reviewed" would depend on who those peers are and what, if any, agenda THEY may have. Doesn't it?
There are standards within each field. What evidence do you have that the standards of peer review are unreliable or inaccurate here?

And I answered your question. Could you answer mine please?

“Si vis pacem, para bellum !!”

Since: Dec 07

Southeast Virginia

#11593 Feb 24, 2014
Dan the Man Chambersburg wrote:
<quoted text>
There are standards within each field. What evidence do you have that the standards of peer review are unreliable or inaccurate here?
And I answered your question. Could you answer mine please?
You made the generalized statement:
"This is absolutely true of the pro-gun "research" crowd. Objective sources however have reported their findings accurately."

How do you KNOW that those findings are accurate, or do they just fit your anti-gun agenda. Because a LOT of the anti-gun "research", such as that done by the VPC {spit} is BS and they cook their numbers to fit that agenda.

Objective research to me would be research that is done and the conclusions are ddrawn AFTER completion. Not where a hypothesis is formed and stats are gathered to try to prove the assertion.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11594 Feb 24, 2014
Julia wrote:
<quoted text>Do you think Danny will show up to answer your question?.
Not everyone gets to sit around the couch collecting checks and food stamps like you, BottleQueen.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11595 Feb 24, 2014
Julia wrote:
There were a lot of posts deleted and they belonged to that liberal pervert, barefoot.
Those were your posts, Shug.

I know you don't keep track of your posts... why would you?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#11596 Feb 24, 2014
Aquarius-WY wrote:
<quoted text>
Will he show up? Yes.
Will he address the question? No.
Will you show up?

Yes.

Will you move the goal posts?

Yes.

Will you paraphrase and pretend it is is a quote?

Of course. It is what you do.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Secret Service Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News GW husband, wife face charges in counterfeit case Jul 17 lch2105 2
News Scene & Heard: VP Mike Pence on Sanibel Jul 1 Anthony wright 2
News Illinois man pleads not guilty to threatening t... Jun 29 HOLLA 1
News Secret Service investigating effigy of Presiden... (Jan '10) Jun 21 Trumpenstein bank... 44
News Secret Service relaxes marijuana policy in bid ... Jun '17 RushFan666 6
News Men wanted for allegedly taking over $30K from ... May '17 Belinda 1
US Secret Service Clothes (Sep '06) May '17 nikonnicky 28
More from around the web